Elsie Sweetman

Elsie Sweetman died from an illegal operation.

A nurse from Pimlico was tried for her murder after Elsie Sweetman made a dying declaration against her but it was heard that at the time she made the declaration that it was not believed that she was going to die as after she had made plans to get married and so the statement, the only evidence against the nurse, was not allowed at the trial as evidence. It was also heard that there might have been an accomplice and that the declaration should have been heard by both of the accused.

It was suggested that her employer had been the accomplice but it was heard at the inquest that there was not sufficient evidence to associate him with the operation.

However, the woman initially tried for her murder was convicted of carrying out an illegal operation on another woman, an actress, and sentenced to five years imprisonment.

Elsie Sweetman had been a draper's assistant and had previously lived in newton Abbot, Devonshire.

The draper, aged 43, had lived in Brompton Road, SW whilst the nurse had lived in Westmoreland Street in Pimlico. Elsie Sweetman was said to have been in the draper's employ as a shop assistant.

Elsie Sweetman died in the early morning of 10 April 1911 at 41 Pagoda Avenue, Richmond, the cause of death being blood poisoning caused by the use of an instrument. The prosecution noted that the operation had been performed in a peculiarly reckless manner.

At the trial the nurse was tried first for carrying out an illegal operation on the other woman. It was heard that when the police had gone to the nurses home during their investigation into Elsie Sweetman's death that they had found an envelope there with the other woman's name and address on it and that it was that that had led them to her. However, it was noted that the woman's name was to be suppressed at the trial and the judge added that if the police saw anyone sketching that they would stop immediately.

When the woman, an actress, gave evidence her name was not revealed but after being shown the envelope in the stand she agreed that it was her name and address. She said that she was married but had been living apart from her husband and had one child aged 2 years 8 months and had known the nurse for about a year, having first met her at a nurses exhibition after which she went to her home in Westmoreland Street, Pimlico for the first time on 18 March 1911. She said that she then arranged for the nurse to perform an operation on her and stayed with her until  26 March 1911.

She said that she stayed with the nurse for a few days after the operation and that when she had left she had left her an envelope with her name and address on it so that the nurse could forward her her post office savings book which had been retained when she had drawn some money out with it.

The actress said that when she went to see the nurse at Westmoreland Street that she told her that the charge would be 5 guineas and told her that she was 4 months gone. She said that she went into a back bedroom with her, leaving her coat and hat in the sitting room and that whilst in the bedroom she saw an instrument in a basin of water, stating that it was metal, long and round, about 10 inches in length and a silvery colour.

She said that she then lay on her left side with her back towards the nurse and that the nurse then tucked her clothes up and put the instrument in her. She said that she felt her hand in her first, her fingers, and said that she left the instrument in her and told her to lie there for half an hour, noting that the instrument hurt her, but not very much. She said that at the end of an hour that the nurse came back and said that her room was ready and that she then got up and walked with her to the other bedroom, the middle room on the ground floor, and that she could still feel the instrument inside her. However, she said that in the other bedroom the instrument fell out, noting that it was the one that she had noticed earlier in the basin, and said that there was blood on it.

She said that she then got into bed undressed, noting that there was blood on her underclothes and that the nurse gave her some wadding to wear. She said that the next day she felt all right but had some pains in her back. She added that a servant girl waited on her whilst there, pointing her out as a girl attending the trial.

She said that she was feeling ill and that the nurse told her that she would examine her and said that she put her fingers inside her and that some blood came away. She said that shortly after the nurse came back and examined her some more and that something lese came away from her that the nurse took and put on the fire, noting that it looked dark like liver. She said that the following day that the nurse repeated the process and took something else from her and that after that she started to feel better and that she left on 26 March 1911.

She said that she paid the nurse £5-4-0 in cash.

A senior scientific analyst at the Home Office said that he had carefully read the actress’s depositions, stating that she had said that on 16 March 1911 that she had seen the instrument in a basin of water, describing it as metal, about 10 inches long, thin and a silvery colour and that she had then laid on her left side and that the nurse had put her fingers in her genital parts and that she had then felt the instrument in her and that after that she had waited an hour before walking into another room where the instrument fell out.

The analyst said that the deposition appeared to clearly indicate that an instrument was passed on Thursday 18 March into her womb.

He said that the fact that the instrument was then seen with blood on it after it fell out and the fact that there was bleeding from the genital passages was proof of that.

He said that the instrument was probably a metal catheter or some similar instrument and that the proper use of a catheter to draw off urine would not cause bleeding.

He then said that it was a very wrong and unjustifiable procedure to pass a metal instrument into the womb of a pregnant woman and that that should never be done. He added that no examination to find out if a woman was pregnant justified the use of an instrument as described.

He said that the passage of an instrument into the womb of a pregnant woman would only be done to cause abortion and that he knew of no other object in doing that.

He said that if an instrument were passed into the womb of a pregnant woman that it would either perforate the membrane enclosing the foetus or separate the membranes and that an abortion would almost certainly follow within four days.

He noted that the actress had stated that something like liver had come away from her on 18 March 1911 and that on Monday 20 March something more came away from her and stated that there was no doubt that an abortion had occurred after the operation on 16 March 1911 and that a foetus and 'after birth' with membranes and blood came away on 18 and 21 March 1911.

The analyst concluded by stating that if the deposition of the woman was correct that he had no doubt that an instrument was passed by the nurse on 16 March 1911 and that a miscarriage occurred as a result of that between 16 March and 21 March 1911.

However, with regards to the death of Elsie Sweetman, the trial at the Old Bailey on Wednesday 24 May 1911 heard that the only evidence against the nurse was the dying deposition made by Elsie Sweetman, but the judge said that he could not conclude that the statement had been made by Elsie Sweetman in hopeless anticipation of death, as was essential, and that it was not therefore admissible and so the jury returned a not guilty verdict against the nurse on that count.

The files from the trial at the Old Bailey held at the National Archives in London under file CRIM 1/120/5 relate to the other illegal operation and does not contain Elsie Sweetman's final statement.